5 ms·

I've personally witnessed the hiring of a contractor from India at a small development company simply to save on funds. There were plenty of skilled workers in

I've personally witnessed the hiring of a contractor from India at a small development company simply to save on funds. There were plenty of skilled workers in our pool to fill the position, the owner simply didn't want to pay the price. Weeks into his employment the developer came to me and asked if there was anyone he could report work complaints to. I gave him contact information for the state's employment agency. It took another week before I realized that he needed to be informed that the state agency protects him whether he's a citizen or not, and that he wasn't trying to report a former employer. I know many talented people who have come to the US on H-1B clean and have been successful. I, too, do not blame the workers. The employers are abusing the system, and if it continues there must be much stricter oversight.

iliketosleep 10y ago
So long as a loophole exists that satisfy the conditions of being relatively easy to exploit, weakly enforcement, and offer significant competitive advantage (i.e. savings on salaries), companies will exploit it. Finding loopholes in the system to enhance profits and be more competitive is part of a game. So I find it difficult to blame employers. The problem lies in policy and enforcement; something is very wrong if it makes sense from a business and risk management perspective to break the rules.
- toyg 10y ago
  Whenever people moan about enforcement of white-collar-crime laws, I can't help but think about the last scene in The Wolf of Wall Street: after a short stint in prison, DiCaprio's scummy businessman is still rich and admired, while the FBI guy who took him down shares a cheap subway ride with other poor, tired and depressed workers. Incentives are wrong all over the place, Reaganism made authorities fundamentally powerless. Why would any civil servant sweat prosecuting big businesses, when he can just close an eye and wait for a revolving door to appear shortly after?
  - iliketosleep 10y ago
    You've highlighted a contradiction in the general public which I find quite disturbing. The worship and admiration of the very people (or even companies, in some cases) who screw them over.
    - koolba 10y ago
      That applies to a range of social situations. Ever heard the saying, "Treat them like dirt, they'll cling to you like mud?"
  - jackgolding 10y ago
    I agree, here's a great quote by Terry Pratchett on how I think the world should feel about these crimes... “but what should we do when the highborn and wealthy take to crime? Indeed, if a poor man will spend a year in prison for stealing out of hunger, how high would the gallows need to be to hang the rich man who breaks the law out of greed?”
    - pm90 10y ago
      I know it is unfair but honestly I can't think of a system with any kind of equality in these circumstances with the unequal distribution of income that we have now. The poor are prosecuted very harshly because there are statistically a LOT more poor than rich and if there was no "stick", it would lead to a breakdown in law and order. While for the rich... you prevent them from causing more damage, but you know that they can't cause chaos in the day to day. At least I believe that was the reasoning until the 2008 disaster.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > Reaganism made authorities fundamentally powerless Corruption between regulators and the regulated predates Reaganism by quite a lot. The problem here isn't a lack of authority on the part of the government. It's misaligned incentives and poor policy-making.
  - autokad 10y ago
    "Reaganism made authorities fundamentally powerless" This topic is being abused by the most liberal companies in the most liberal cities. i get the feeling its mostly ignored and not prosecuted (like illegal immigration) is because they feel its better for everyone. I am not taking a stance on whether that is correct, but don't for one second blame that on Reaganism.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
izacus 10y ago
That sounds like free market though doesn't it? Hire the cheapest workforce that can do what you want?
- klodolph 10y ago
  Maybe it's the "selectively free market". Free when it makes things convenient for me (I can hire cheap labor), not free when it makes things inconvenient (I don't compete against cheap labor or other business which might be more competitive here if they could hire the same cheap labor).
  - izacus 10y ago
    Or maybe "we want fully free market for whatever we produce but not for when someone competes for my job"? :) HN comments usually skew hugely against any kind of regulation and towards "free market will take care of it", except when it comes to jobs and pay it seems.
    - klodolph 10y ago
      Yes, that's a good way of putting it. Free market is often a layer of rhetoric on top of arguments for whatever deregulation makes you the most money.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      If the comments skew against regulation, I wonder how they skew toward a Communist like me. I don't usually get more than 2 or 3 downvotes, though maybe that's because I don't comment in threads that are very populous.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    You can shortcut all of these speculative definitions by acknowledging that the free market doesn't exist.
- fasteo 10y ago
  Not quite IMHO. Free market requires equal conditions for the available workforce pool. Then, the worker is free to set his price. Not the other way around.
refurb 10y ago
It took another week before I realized that he needed to be informed that the state agency protects him whether he's a citizen or not Hmmm... that gives me an idea. Maybe the gov't should clearly lay out protections for foreign workers up to and including preserving their work visa even if their original employer is found to be breaking the law? That would provide some serious incentive for sponsor companies to keep their nose clean if they realized that the the folks they bring over can get them busted and still stay in the country.
- prostoalex 10y ago
  > Maybe the gov't should clearly lay out protections for foreign workers up to and including preserving their work visa even if their original employer is found to be breaking the law? Those protections are already in place. Once the H1 transfer is complete, there's very little relation the worker retains to the original employer.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  >Maybe the gov't should clearly lay out protections for foreign workers up to and including preserving their work visa even if their original employer is found to be breaking the law? Why not let them have their work visa no matter what? Why should their visa be tied to their employer at all? That just invites abuse. As for their employer, how about any employer found to be breaking the law with regard to foreign workers gets his citizenship revoked and is deported? We could use more hard-working immigrants, and then for anyone complaining about too many immigrants, if we ship out a bunch of our home-grown garbage (abusive managers) that'll free up room. We should deport all the HR people involved in these cases too while we're at it, because they're obviously complicit.

iliketosleep 10y ago

So long as a loophole exists that satisfy the conditions of being relatively easy to exploit, weakly enforcement, and offer significant competitive advantage (i.e. savings on salaries), companies will exploit it. Finding loopholes in the system to enhance profits and be more competitive is part of a game. So I find it difficult to blame employers. The problem lies in policy and enforcement; something is very wrong if it makes sense from a business and risk management perspective to break the rules.

toyg 10y ago
Whenever people moan about enforcement of white-collar-crime laws, I can't help but think about the last scene in The Wolf of Wall Street: after a short stint in prison, DiCaprio's scummy businessman is still rich and admired, while the FBI guy who took him down shares a cheap subway ride with other poor, tired and depressed workers. Incentives are wrong all over the place, Reaganism made authorities fundamentally powerless. Why would any civil servant sweat prosecuting big businesses, when he can just close an eye and wait for a revolving door to appear shortly after?
- iliketosleep 10y ago
  You've highlighted a contradiction in the general public which I find quite disturbing. The worship and admiration of the very people (or even companies, in some cases) who screw them over.
  - koolba 10y ago
    That applies to a range of social situations. Ever heard the saying, "Treat them like dirt, they'll cling to you like mud?"
- jackgolding 10y ago
  I agree, here's a great quote by Terry Pratchett on how I think the world should feel about these crimes... “but what should we do when the highborn and wealthy take to crime? Indeed, if a poor man will spend a year in prison for stealing out of hunger, how high would the gallows need to be to hang the rich man who breaks the law out of greed?”
  - pm90 10y ago
    I know it is unfair but honestly I can't think of a system with any kind of equality in these circumstances with the unequal distribution of income that we have now. The poor are prosecuted very harshly because there are statistically a LOT more poor than rich and if there was no "stick", it would lead to a breakdown in law and order. While for the rich... you prevent them from causing more damage, but you know that they can't cause chaos in the day to day. At least I believe that was the reasoning until the 2008 disaster.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > Reaganism made authorities fundamentally powerless Corruption between regulators and the regulated predates Reaganism by quite a lot. The problem here isn't a lack of authority on the part of the government. It's misaligned incentives and poor policy-making.
- autokad 10y ago
  "Reaganism made authorities fundamentally powerless" This topic is being abused by the most liberal companies in the most liberal cities. i get the feeling its mostly ignored and not prosecuted (like illegal immigration) is because they feel its better for everyone. I am not taking a stance on whether that is correct, but don't for one second blame that on Reaganism.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

izacus 10y ago

That sounds like free market though doesn't it? Hire the cheapest workforce that can do what you want?

klodolph 10y ago
Maybe it's the "selectively free market". Free when it makes things convenient for me (I can hire cheap labor), not free when it makes things inconvenient (I don't compete against cheap labor or other business which might be more competitive here if they could hire the same cheap labor).
- izacus 10y ago
  Or maybe "we want fully free market for whatever we produce but not for when someone competes for my job"? :) HN comments usually skew hugely against any kind of regulation and towards "free market will take care of it", except when it comes to jobs and pay it seems.
  - klodolph 10y ago
    Yes, that's a good way of putting it. Free market is often a layer of rhetoric on top of arguments for whatever deregulation makes you the most money.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    If the comments skew against regulation, I wonder how they skew toward a Communist like me. I don't usually get more than 2 or 3 downvotes, though maybe that's because I don't comment in threads that are very populous.
- rhizome 10y ago
  You can shortcut all of these speculative definitions by acknowledging that the free market doesn't exist.
fasteo 10y ago
Not quite IMHO. Free market requires equal conditions for the available workforce pool. Then, the worker is free to set his price. Not the other way around.

refurb 10y ago

It took another week before I realized that he needed to be informed that the state agency protects him whether he's a citizen or not Hmmm... that gives me an idea. Maybe the gov't should clearly lay out protections for foreign workers up to and including preserving their work visa even if their original employer is found to be breaking the law? That would provide some serious incentive for sponsor companies to keep their nose clean if they realized that the the folks they bring over can get them busted and still stay in the country.

prostoalex 10y ago
> Maybe the gov't should clearly lay out protections for foreign workers up to and including preserving their work visa even if their original employer is found to be breaking the law? Those protections are already in place. Once the H1 transfer is complete, there's very little relation the worker retains to the original employer.
Arizhel 10y ago
>Maybe the gov't should clearly lay out protections for foreign workers up to and including preserving their work visa even if their original employer is found to be breaking the law? Why not let them have their work visa no matter what? Why should their visa be tied to their employer at all? That just invites abuse. As for their employer, how about any employer found to be breaking the law with regard to foreign workers gets his citizenship revoked and is deported? We could use more hard-working immigrants, and then for anyone complaining about too many immigrants, if we ship out a bunch of our home-grown garbage (abusive managers) that'll free up room. We should deport all the HR people involved in these cases too while we're at it, because they're obviously complicit.